Three "odd" statements regarding Free Society and guns; what part of "free" is so hard to understand? - Granite Grok

Three “odd” statements regarding Free Society and guns; what part of “free” is so hard to understand?

OK, one by by reporting TV station and two by a politician who swears an oath to uphold the Constitution (reformatted, emphasis mine):

A bill making its way through the Statehouse could put more guns on the streets of South Carolina.

Rep. Wendell Gilliard said Friday he believes it’s a mistake to pass a bill that would open South Carolina borders to concealed carry permits from other states. He added, it would give almost anyone the ability to walk into South Carolina with a gun. “Everybody wants the right to carry a gun and that’s dangerous in a free society,” Gilliard said. “We should not allow that.” Part of this bill also amends current legislation; It no longer requires South Carolinians to get a concealed carry permit to carry in public.

…”We’re definitely moving backwards,” Gilliard said. “It’s not a great day in South Carolina.”

So this is a bill about implementing permitless concealed carry (open carry is illegal) in SC and extending more reciprocity to other CCW holders across the US.  That’s really it – but ABC4News, in their opening line (“put more guns on the streets“) is a bit misleading. Only if a whole lot of carrying tourists go visit and a whole lot of SC law abiding citizens decide to now exercise their Second Amendment rights, given that SC is one step closer to being true to the Constitution’s “not infringe”. But having law abiding citizen is a problem in ABC4News’ eyes? But it is Democrat SC State Rep Gilliard’s statement that I found quite odd:

Everybody wants the right to carry a gun and that’s dangerous in a free society

OK, I get that this union official and card carrying Democrat doesn’t like guns and I understand no one is in favor of more violence.  But if we have a free society, what’s so wrong to let it be really free?  No, not in the “Bernie and Hillary” sense of giving free stuff to people as that always requires that Government TAKE stuff away from others.  Rather, free in the sense of Founders – freedom from government intrusion and control.  No, they didn’t want Anarchy (as the Left keeps accusing we Conservatarians, Conservatives, and Libertarians of all the time) – they understood we ain’t angles and an orderly society does require an effective but LIMITED Government.  That was the only way to achieve maximal individual Liberty with a government that knew its limited business and left the rest of us the heck alone.

Either he is totally misguided about the deeper meaning of what “free society” means or doesn’t understand that in a free society, there are risks.  Lots of risks, actually.  And you either accept the responsibilities of Free or we don’t have a free society.  Limiting citizens rights vis-a-vis the Constitution against an enumerated Right is not returning today’s society to a Constitutional free society.  Unfortunately, our “leaders” don’t see the Constitution for what it really is – our foundational law on which the rest of our laws stand.  In sad fact, many swear their oaths of office to it and then turn around and kick it to the curb.

But then there’s this Democrat’s last phrase: “We’re definitely moving backwards”.  I have no idea, really, what that means?  I hear that a  lot from Progressives and they never say HOW it is backwards.  Is it “backwards” to move back towards a state of being of less government regulation and cost?  Is it “backwards” in removing Government intrusiveness in our lives?  Is it “backwards” to believe that law abiding folks can handle their lives all by themselves, thank you very much, without Nanny staring over their shoulders?  Is it “backwards” in trusting his citizenry?  In this case, letting more folks exercise their Constitutional Right?

Or is it “backwards” when the citizens, via their elected representatives, make a decision to NOT move toward that Progressive Utopia that only they seem to want but are absolutely willing, come hell or high water, to FORCE the rest of us to march to and participate in?  Whether we like it or not?

I would propose that is the “backwards” of all.

(H/T: The Truth About Guns)

>